.svg)
The Supreme Court reaffirms that the legally protected interest in the offense of false crime simulation is the disruption of the administration of justice. In this regard, the Criminal Chamber emphasizes that only false reports that trigger judicial proceedings can be considered criminal offenses.
Citing prior case law, the judgment states:
"The conduct penalized under Article 457 of the Penal Code affects this legal interest in that it unnecessarily diverts resources and efforts of the criminal justice system, compelling it to investigate fictitious events."
Based on this premise, it is established that false reports that do not extend beyond the police level and do not reach judicial authorities fall outside the scope of Article 457 of the Penal Code. Accordingly, the Court underscores:
"Reports of criminal acts without identifying a perpetrator, given that they are cases destined never to appear before an Investigating Court and, therefore, incapable of provoking judicial action directly linked to the falsely reported event, cannot be considered criminally relevant."
One of the central points of the judgment is the application of Article 284.2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides that, in cases where no perpetrator is identified, the Judicial Police may retain the report without forwarding it to the court, except in specific circumstances (serious crimes or those requiring additional actions). In the present case, the false report filed by the defendants regarding the fictitious theft of their vehicle was not forwarded to judicial authorities, which precludes the conclusion that there was any disruption to the administration of justice required for the application of Article 457 of the Penal Code.
The Supreme Court recalls the doctrine established in the Full Court Judgment 347/2020 of June 25, which had already ruled that:
"If a report filed with the police concerning certain offenses without an identified perpetrator is legally destined never to reach a judicial body, remaining archived at the administrative level, the false report of a crime cannot trigger judicial action."
Based on this interpretation, the Supreme Court concludes:
"Consequently, the conduct examined in this case (the reporting of criminal acts to the police without identifying a perpetrator, which was not forwarded to the Investigating Court due to legal constraints) does not have the potential to harm the legally protected interest under Article 457 of the Penal Code, nor does it have the capacity to trigger judicial proceedings as contemplated by that provision. It is therefore atypical."
The judgment also considers whether the facts could be punished as an attempt. However, the Supreme Court dismisses this possibility, stating that, according to prevailing jurisprudence, an attempt in this offense can only be recognized in cases where the false report was on the verge of provoking an actual judicial proceeding, which is not the case here.
The Supreme Court clarifies that an attempt is only viable in offenses whose execution has begun and has a real potential to cause harm, which does not apply when the report is archived without generating judicial action. In this regard, it states:
"If the police report concerning the fictitious facts was archived at the police level, or should have been archived pursuant to Article 284.2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is not possible to charge the complainant under Article 457 of the Penal Code, neither as a completed offense nor as an attempt."
Although the Supreme Court rules out the applicability of false crime simulation in this case, it does consider that the acts may constitute an attempted fraud offense. The defendants falsely reported the theft of their vehicle with the aim of defrauding their insurance company, which falls within the typical structure of fraud as defined under Articles 248 and 249 of the Penal Code.
The Court concludes that, while false crime simulation is not punishable in this case, attempted fraud is:
"The false crime simulation under examination was ultimately aimed at fraudulently obtaining an insurance payout. Consequently, the defendants are convicted as perpetrators of an attempted fraud offense."
Judgment STS 42/2025 reinforces the Supreme Court’s doctrine on the offense of false crime simulation, emphasizing that the legally protected interest is the administration of justice and that only false reports that generate judicial proceedings can be criminally punished. Reports archived at the police level without judicial intervention fall outside the scope of Article 457 of the Penal Code.
This ruling is significant as it clarifies the limits of the offense of false crime simulation and its relationship with the procedural regulation established under Article 284.2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Moreover, it highlights the need to distinguish between false crime simulation and other related offenses, such as fraud, ensuring that fraudulent conduct is not left unpunished but is sanctioned under the appropriate criminal provision.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court precisely delineates the scope of the offense of false crime simulation and establishes clear criteria for its application, consolidating a doctrine that prevents an expansive interpretation of Article 457 of the Penal Code and ensures its compatibility with the principles of legality and criminal typicity.
.svg)
